“Violence recurs because the root causes of the conflict have not been adequately addressed”
The aim of creating peace in a country that is conflict-prone or a post-conflict environment is to prevent the reoccurrence or escalation of violence and establish a durable self-sustaining peace. The root causes of conflicts clearly need to be addressed adequately otherwise violence will recur. There are numerous root causes of a conflict, such as these major causes; political, economic and social inequalities, poor governance, high unemployment and poverty. There are many examples of violence recurring because the root causes of the conflict have not been addressed adequately and that is what I am going to discuss in this essay. (Barash, 2000).
Peace building itself has created debates concerning things such as the motivations behind the powerful actors that sponsor and implement peace building activities and the impact these activities have on the societies in which they operate. A key element to these debates is centered on the impact of liberal peace building; the promotion of western ideas such as democracy, market based economic reforms and various institutions associated with the state being the driving fore behind building peace.
How to approach peace building is often a difficult and controversial task. In particular, the efficiency and appropriateness of promoting western ideas such as democracy and capitalism in unstable and volatile conflict prone environments is contested. Failing to address issues such as adequate consultation with the local people and stakeholders have lead many to question the integrity of peace building operations. It is evident why violence may recur due to the root causes not being addressed properly and sustainability of liberal peace building to be questioned when the emphasis in the peace building operation tries to resolve problems solely from the top-down, mediating amongst powerful corporation owners and state institutions, and ignoring the bottom-up route which would try to resolve issues at a community and
Peace building itself has created debates concerning things such as the motivations behind the powerful actors that sponsor and implement peace building activities and the impact these activities have on the societies in which they operate. A key element to these debates is centered on the impact of liberal peace building; the promotion of western ideas such as democracy, market based economic reforms and various institutions associated with the state being the driving fore behind building peace.
How to approach peace building is often a difficult and controversial task. In particular, the efficiency and appropriateness of promoting western ideas such as democracy and capitalism in unstable and volatile conflict prone environments is contested. Failing to address issues such as adequate consultation with the local people and stakeholders have lead many to question the integrity of peace building operations. It is evident why violence may recur due to the root causes not being addressed properly and sustainability of liberal peace building to be questioned when the emphasis in the peace building operation tries to resolve problems solely from the top-down, mediating amongst powerful corporation owners and state institutions, and ignoring the bottom-up route which would try to resolve issues at a community and